Pages tagged with "James Ballantyne"http://www.rc.umd.edu/taxonomy/term2/17855/all
enRowlinson, "Allegory and Exchange in the Waverley Novels"http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/frictions/HTML/praxis.2011.rowlinson.html
<div class="field field-name-field-published field-type-date field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="collex:date" datatype="gYearMonth"><span class="date-display-single" property="collex:date" datatype="gYearMonth" content="2011-09-01T00:00:00-04:00">September 2011</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-resource-index field-type-entityreference field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/praxis/frictions/index.html">Romantic Frictions</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><!--Couldn't selectively extract content, Imported Full Body :( May need to used a more carefully tuned import template.-->
<div xmlns="" id="container"> </div>
<div id="container">
<div id="body.1_div.1">
<h2 align="center">Romantic Frictions</h2>
<h3 align="center">"Allegory and Exchange in the Waverley Novels" <a href="#1">&#160;[1]</a><a name="back1">&#160;</a></h3>
<p xmlns=""><strong>Matthew Rowlinson</strong><br/>
<strong>University of Western Ontario</strong></p>
<div xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="menu">
<div align="center"><a class="blueboxsm" href="/praxis/frictions/HTML/abstracts.html#RowlinsonAbstract">article abstract</a> | <a class="blueboxsm" href="/praxis/frictions/HTML/about.html#RowlinsonAbout">about the author</a> | <a class="blueboxsm" href="/praxis/frictions/search.html">search volume</a></div>
</div>
<br xmlns="" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"/>
<table xmlns="" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" width="100%" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td width="50%">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" class="boldblue" align="left" id="print"><a onclick="window.print();return false;" href="#">[print full essay]</a></div>
</td>
<td width="50%">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" align="right" id="tei"><a href="/sites/default/files/imported/praxis/frictions/XML/rowlinson.xml"><img alt="TEI" height="15" width="80" align="right" src="/sites/default/files/imported/praxis/frictions/images/xml-tei_button.gif"/></a></div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="section" id="body.1_div.1_div.1">
<h4 align="center">1</h4>
<p class=""><strong>1</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The third of Sir Walter Scott&#8217;s Waverley novels, <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> was published in 1816 and set in 1794. It was Scott&#8217;s favorite among his novels and of them all displays the most playful consciousness of itself as a fiction. Historic struggles elsewhere in the series are fought to a close by characters who, according to Luk&#225;cs, engage in them as types of whole contending classes. Here some of the same conflicts appear in a belated and oddly inconsequential staging&#8212;Marx might say, as farce&#8212;with characters whose enactments of political struggle the novel tends to expose as fantasy. &#8220;In <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>,&#8221; as Ian Duncan writes, &#8220;Scott undertakes what might be called the Shandyfication of historical romance, glossing his earlier fiction and its cultural themes in a self-reflexive and metafictional novel in which &#8216;nothing happens&#8217;&#8221; (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">Scott&#8217;s Shadow</span> 139).<a href="#2">&#160;[2]</a><a name="back2">&#160;</a> The conflict of the Stewart and Hanoverian monarchies thus dwindles into the after-dinner quarrels of Jonathan Oldbuck, the antiquary of the title, and his neighbor, Sir Arthur Wardour.<a href="#3">&#160;[3]</a><a name="back3">&#160;</a> Their respective descents, from a German Protestant printer and refugee and from a Norman knight, establish their figural relation to the rival parties of 1688, 1715, and 1745. In spite of Wardour and Oldbuck&#8217;s quarrels, the novel&#8217;s topic is historical closure; it argues that the struggles these characters seem to represent are actually concluded, and that both are in practice loyal subjects of a united Britain, who share a single class position as members of the landed gentry. The differences between
them are mere remainders and are appropriately staged by their disagreements about the value of old coins, curiosities, and other relics. These disagreements arise, in their most elementary form, from the absence of single standard of <em xmlns="">price</em>, which thus functions in the novel as the belated afterimage of a century-long absence in Scotland of a single accepted monarch.<a href="#4">&#160;[4]</a><a name="back4">&#160;</a></p>
<p class=""><strong>2</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Since Luk&#225;cs first read Scott in this way, much of the best criticism of his fiction has adopted his conception of its characters as types, even when putting it in service of political and historiographic arguments that differ widely from his.<a href="#5">&#160;[5]</a><a name="back5">&#160;</a> In the first section of this essay, however, we will discuss problems of identifying and representing money that do not operate in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> only at the level of character. Individual characters disagree about what counts as money, or show irrational preferences for one representative of money over another. The novel itself embraces difference and mediation in the money form; money proper&#8212;in the form of silver, which in 1794 still provided the legal standard for British money&#8212;appears in it only as an alien and unintelligible intruder. Standard money, moreover, proves alien not only to the historical setting the novel represents, but also to its own diegetic conventions. Its appearance produces a crux, not only in the novel&#8217;s historical representation, but also in its text.</p>
<p class=""><strong>3</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;When in chapter 22 Wardour presents Oldbuck &#8220;as a gift of friendship&#8221; with a collection of antique coins and medals, begging him to choose those that will improve his collection, he initiates a sequence of misunderstandings. Wardour owes Oldbuck money&#8212;and is in fact offering the gift as propitiation before requesting a further loan&#8212;so Oldbuck proposes to take the pieces at their catalogue valuation as partial payment of the debt. Wardour objects both to the confusion of a gift with payment, and more centrally to the catalogue itself, with its implication that the curiosity&#8217;s value derives from the auction room rather than from the mere facts of age and association with the crown. Oldbuck himself shows a different kind of scepticism about market prices when he finally values the gold and silver pieces at twenty guineas in bullion and as much more only &#8220;to such fools as ourselves, who are willing to pay for curiosity&#8221; (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> ch. 22; Scott <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Waverley Novels</span> 3: 217). The market, in this final view, would be a confederation of fools who collectively drive the curiosity&#8217;s price over what Oldbuck ironically pretends to believe is its only real value, that of the bullion it contains.</p>
<p class=""><strong>4</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The problem of valuing the curiosity involves both characters in contradiction. Wardour owes Oldbuck a money debt, but offers him coins on which he does not want to set a money value. Oldbuck proposes first to cite their value <em xmlns="">in</em> money, then to value them <em xmlns="">as</em> money. For each of them the curiosity flashes into existence, either as a gift or as a commodity in its own right, only as the negation of money. The recurring difficulty of valuing old and curious artifacts that Yoon Sun Lee has noted in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> is especially acute in this episode because in the case of old coins the indeterminate value of the curiosity is the mirror-image of the indeterminacy of circulating coin, a trait of late eighteenth-century Scotland that forms one of the novel&#8217;s minor recurring themes.</p>
<p class=""><strong>5</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Jonathan Oldbuck&#8217;s collecting mania is an object of mild satire throughout the novel; the major vehicle for this satire is the beggar Edie Ochiltree. Ochiltree is the novel&#8217;s principal truth-teller, repository of secrets, and returner of persons and things to their proper places. One of his running jokes at Oldbuck&#8217;s expense concerns the antiquary&#8217;s exchange of &#8220;siller&#8221; with a packman for an artifact he believed to be an old coin. Twice in the novel Ochiltree reminds him of this transaction, tormenting him with the fact that the supposed &#8220;auld coin&#8221; had actually proved only to be a &#8220;bodle&#8221; (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">Antiquary</span> chs. 4, 44; <span xmlns="" class="titlem">WN</span> 2: 42, 400). This joke is odder than it at first seems, since the bodle was a copper two penny piece of the old Scots coinage, which had nominally been superseded at the Act of Union in 1707.<a href="#6">&#160;[6]</a><a name="back6">&#160;</a> The bodle itself was last minted in 1697 (Stewart 117); since the old Scots currency was converted into Sterling at the rate of twelve to one, it might after the Union be said to have the value of one sixth of a penny&#8212;though legally it had no monetary value at all. In 1794 a bodle would thus have to be at least 97 years old; it would also have been a relic of Scotland&#8217;s former status as an independent state with its own mint. Why does Edie Ochiltree, apparently with the novel&#8217;s endorsement, take it for granted that a bodle is not an &#8220;auld coin&#8221;?</p>
<p class=""><strong>6</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The episode demonstrates both the indeterminacy of the category &#8216;money&#8217; and the curiosity&#8217;s status as money&#8217;s negative image. The reason the bodle doesn&#8217;t count as an old coin in 1794 appears to be that even a century after the last example was minted it still counts as money. At the union the gold and silver Scots coinage was reminted to the English standard; not so the copper. Nor was there anywhere in Britain enough copper minted during the eighteenth century to supply the need for change. The result was a dilapidated and heterogeneous copper circulation throughout the country, the more so the further one got from the Mint in London. In the latter part of the eighteenth century some merchants and manufacturers took to issuing their own copper tokens to supply the needs of local trade. This practice, illegal though tolerated, was especially common in Scotland (Stewart 124 and plate XX). Such tokens continued to be issued into the nineteenth century; some were merely old coins stamped with a new countermark: an 1811 example of such recycled coinage was made from old bodles (Stewart 166), which suggests a terminal date for their circulation as originally minted.</p>
<p class=""><strong>7</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The problematic relation of the curiosity to current coin is not the only form in which <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> represents money&#8217;s inhomogeneity and the consequent difficulty of identifying it. More important to the plot than Oldbuck&#8217;s purchase of ambiguous coins is the duping of his neighbor by a German named Dousterswivel. Dousterswivel&#8217;s swindle is to take Wardour&#8217;s money as a fee, offering in exchange to discover by occult arts, first a lead mine, then hoards of silver and gold supposedly hidden on his property in the ruined priory of St. Ruth&#8217;s. During the course of the novel Wardour is bilked of his entire fortune, with the eventual result that his property is seized by creditors and he narrowly avoids bankruptcy.</p>
<p class=""><strong>8</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Like Oldbuck&#8217;s pursuit of the curiosity, his neighbor&#8217;s quixotic pursuit of gold and silver takes the form of an irrational exchange of money for money. While Oldbuck makes himself ridiculous by exchanging good silver for bad copper, Dousterswivel appeals to his victims by promising not only to multiply their money, but to change its kind: "If you join wid Sir Arthur, as he is put in one hundred and fifty&#8212;see, here is one fifty in your dirty Fairport banknote&#8212;you shall put in one other hundred and fifty in de dirty notes, and you shall have de pure gold and silver, I cannot tell how much!" (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">Antiquary</span> ch. 23; <span xmlns="" class="titlem">WN</span> 3: 218). Dousterswivel&#8217;s arts will transmute money from mere dirt into something sublime.</p>
<p class=""><strong>9</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In the Lacanian formula for the sublime, it is an object that has been raised to the dignity of the Thing; that is to say, it is an object that can appear to fill the gap or pay the debt on which the Symbolic order is founded (Lacan 126, 134). In Scott, the promise of such an object always turns out to be a snare: Wardour&#8217;s acceptance of the offer to produce pure gold and silver in exchange for paper money leads him to spend his entire fortune and everything he can borrow. His debts are paid in the end with bills of exchange supplied by the novel&#8217;s pseudonymous hero Lovel in a resolution that restores the circulation of symbolic as well as monetary debt, since Lovel&#8217;s gift is ultimately repaid by his marriage to Wardour&#8217;s daughter.</p>
<p class=""><strong>10</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In the interim, however, Doutserswivel&#8217;s diggings in fact prove to contain silver ingots worth &#163;1000. These have "neither inscription nor stamp upon them, excepting one, which seemed to be Spanish" (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> ch. 23; <span xmlns="" class="titlem">WN</span> 3: 225). Their origin is a mystery, especially to Dousterswivel, who is deluded by the discovery to believe in his own spells, and ultimately led to become his own greatest dupe. Eventually, the silver turns out to have been left as a gift for the almost-bankrupt Baronet to find. Both the medium of the gift&#8212;unstamped silver&#8212;and the means of conveying it have been chosen to conceal that its source is Lovel, his daughter&#8217;s suitor.</p>
<p class=""><strong>11</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Lovel&#8217;s courtship of Sir Arthur&#8217;s daughter Isabella is the novel&#8217;s principal narrative thread; he believes himself to be illegitimate, and the bar to his suit is a prejudice against illegitimacy that has been handed down in the Wardour family ever since its founding. The blank surface of the silver ingots he leaves for the baronet both conceals his identity and figures the bastard&#8217;s lack of a proper name. But the romance-plot of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> is oriented towards the discovery at its close that the hero is not illegitimate at all. He was raised as the illegitimate son of Geraldin Neville, in Yorkshire, but discovers that Neville had in fact only adopted and not fathered him. When his adoptive father refused to reveal his real paternity, the son renounced his name and took the fictitious one of Lovel. He inherits the mysterious silver from Neville, who dies in the course of the novel; it had come to Neville as plate from the family of Glenallan, of which Lovel/Neville&#8217;s real father is the head. The novel as Scott published it affirms that the blank silver ingots which make it possible for the son to conceal his identity&#8212;as Lovel or Neville&#8212;had originally been melted down to conceal <em xmlns="">from him</em> the identity he bears without knowing it as the heir of Glenallan, with whose arms the silver plate would have been stamped.</p>
<p class=""><strong>12</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The silver ingots at the center of this episode appear to resolve the problem we began with, that of money&#8217;s indeterminate identity. Britain in the eighteenth century was nominally on a silver standard; the silver coinage was in such poor condition, however, that legislation of 1774 provided that silver would be legal tender for debts of over &#163;25 only by weight, not by tale (Kindleberger 61). A box of silver ingots would in 1794 have been the most exact possible representation of money as such. In this form, money is antithetical to symbolic identity; the blank surface of the silver figures the effaced names of those through whose hands it has passed and the illegibility of its own history.</p>
<p class=""><strong>13</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The effects of Scott&#8217;s representation of money as a materialized gap in the Symbolic, however, are not confined within the frame of his novel. The impossibility of accounting for the silver&#8217;s appearance in Dousterswivel&#8217;s excavations is a problem that the novel shares with its own characters. The sentences from chapter 45 (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">WN</span> 3: 408-09) that provide the narrative summarized above are, like the novel&#8217;s protagonist, of dubious legitimacy. They are uttered by &#8220;Lovel&#8221; himself, and, as we have seen, they explain that the silver&#8217;s ultimate source was his father the Earl of Glenallan. At this point in the novel, however, &#8220;Lovel&#8221; does not yet <em xmlns="">know</em> his true descent&#8212;that discovery is reserved for the following paragraph. His explanation of the silver&#8217;s source thus assumes information he does not yet possess. The novel&#8217;s latest editor, David Hewitt, has discovered that this error in its diegesis was introduced into the novel as an authorial revision. Scott originally had &#8220;Lovel&#8221; explain that he bought the silver from a bank that had recently imported it, and it is this version that Hewitt prints in his 1995 Edinburgh edition. Scott changed the story on the verso of his original manuscript before the relevant passage had been set up in type, though, and it was the revised version that appeared in print, both in the first edition and in each of the two or three subsequent editions that he oversaw.<a href="#7">&#160;[7]</a><a name="back7">&#160;</a></p>
<p class=""><strong>14</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Scott&#8217;s plot required that the money-hoard uncovered by Dousterswivel should have no legible history. It hence could not have been paper, or even coin. But the Scottish monetary system in the second half of the eighteenth century afforded no very plausible source of specie. Unlike England, where gold and silver were in general circulation owing to a ban on banknotes of less than &#163;5 (Kindleberger 78), in Scotland small denomination banknotes had driven most gold and silver out of circulation. Much of what precious metal did make its way to Scotland was used to pay debts in England, which enjoyed a trade surplus with Scotland throughout the eighteenth century. The effect on Scottish money and banking was notorious: in 1776 Adam Smith estimated the whole Scottish circulation at &#163;2 million, of which no more than a quarter was in gold and silver (1: 316). Scott writes in 1826 of Scotland as a nation that had adopted paper money because it &#8220;is too poor to retain a circulating medium of the precious metals&#8221; (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">Critical and Miscellaneous Essays</span> 3: 350).</p>
<p class=""><strong>15</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The unlikelihood of finding &#163;1000 worth of silver at a rural Scottish bank in 1794 seems to have led Scott to revise his original account. Hewitt retains the deleted reading in the name of narrative coherence, but at the cost of introducing an historical and textual anomaly. Needing to represent an embodiment of money whose history is as illegible as its protagonist&#8217;s, the novel succeeds too well, and produces one of whose history its own text can provide only defective accounts. The representation of money as such opens an irreducible textual fault.</p>
<p class=""><strong>16</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;This fault does not arise from the divided political allegiance of eighteenth-century Scots, but from divided allegiance among Scott&#8217;s modern editors with respect to the authority of manuscript and print.<a href="#8">&#160;[8]</a><a name="back8">&#160;</a> The reason for this divided allegiance lies in the social process by which Scott and others produced the historical phenomenon that was the Waverley Novels. That <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> sets its representation of money as such in this crux suggests that, rather than reading its blank money and nameless hero as <em xmlns="">types</em> of a crisis of political authority in eighteenth-century Scotland, we should take all of these representations out of the historical setting in which Scott placed them, and consider them as <em xmlns="">allegorical</em> presentations of a nineteenth-century crisis in the process of literary production.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="body.1_div.1_div.2">
<h4 align="center">II</h4>
<p class=""><strong>17</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#8220;Mr. Cadell, there is a certain thing called Capital. You should look to that, for these times are bad, and your transactions very large&#8221; (Constable 3: 361). Thus the manager of an Edinburgh bank to Robert Cadell, Archibald Constable&#8217;s junior partner, in the fall of 1815. Constable had already published the first two Waverley novels and had the third, which was to be <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>, under contract; it was eventually published in May of 1816. Publishing Scott was an expensive business as well as a lucrative one, and, as this rebuff implies, Constable carried it on for the most part with borrowed money. In refusing to extend further credit, Cadell&#8217;s interlocutor tells him that the amount of his firm&#8217;s transactions with borrowed money is already in disproportion to the small size of its own capital.</p>
<p class=""><strong>18</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Cadell must have found it a heavy-handed irony to be addressed not as if his firm had too little capital, but as if he had never heard of it. Like other rhetorical figures that sometimes intrude on discussions of money (&#8220;Do you think I&#8217;m made of money?&#8221; &#8220;Money doesn&#8217;t grow on trees&#8221;) however, this one suggests a problem of reference for which its extravagance is a kind of compensation. <em xmlns="">Is</em> capital a thing? How sure can anyone, even a banker, be of recognizing it when they see it?</p>
<p class=""><strong>19</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Marx&#8217;s elementary formula for capital in Vol. 1 of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Capital</span>, M-C-M, designates the exchange of money for a commodity that is once more sold as money. For our purposes, the central point of this formula is that it locates the identity of capital in the money form. Though capital may and indeed must repeatedly assume the form of commodities, these commodities&#8217; identity as capital depends upon their eventual retransformation into money. The commodity is capital&#8217;s &#8220;disguised&#8221; mode of existence, while money is its &#8220;general&#8221; one; capital&#8217;s &#8220;identity with itself&#8221; can be affirmed only by its repeated re-embodiment of itself in money (Marx 255).<a href="#9">&#160;[9]</a><a name="back9">&#160;</a></p>
<p class=""><strong>20</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;For Marx money is both a commodity, the material product of social labor, and the mediator of other commodities&#8217; value. As capital, however, money is a mediator that appears to mediate itself; at the center of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Capital</span> is the critique of this appearance. For Marx the appearance of capital&#8217;s self-identity belongs to metaphysics, and he satirizes the way it &#8220;differentiates . . . itself from itself&#8221; while still remaining the same by comparing it to the theology of the Incarnation, according to which &#8220;God the Father differentiates himself as God the Son&#8221; (256).</p>
<p class=""><strong>21</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The project of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Capital</span> is to dissolve this appearance of capital&#8217;s identity. In discussing Scott, we are concerned with an historical moment at which that appearance has scarcely yet been constituted. If money is the medium in which capital identifies itself, Scott wrote at a time and in a place where the money supply was in practice extremely heterogeneous and monetary theory was a hotly debated topic in political economy. As we have seen, in Scotland throughout the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the circulating currency mostly comprised notes of Scottish joint-stock banks and dilapidated token coin. Legal tender coin minted in England was rarely found there. Between 1797 and 1817, moreover, all of Britain was in the anomalous position of having <em xmlns="">no</em> legal tender in circulation. Owing to the exigencies of wartime, the government prohibited the Bank of England from paying out gold and allowed issues of small-denomination bank notes to circulate in its place.<a href="#10">&#160;[10]</a><a name="back10">&#160;</a> Gold and silver rapidly became scarce throughout Britain, but the government decided that they would remain the only legal tender. During this period, adjudicating the value of different representatives of money was an everyday problem for Britons of all classes.</p>
<p class=""><strong>22</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;This history provides a backdrop to the specific conditions in which Scott sold his labor in the Waverley novels during the first two decades of the nineteenth century. In a cash-poor economy without capital markets or facilities for long-term lending other than on mortgage, trade was financed by regional or trade-specific networks of short-term credit. When Scott sold his labour he encountered his publishers&#8217; capital as a series of obligations dispersed in networks of this kind.</p>
<p class=""><strong>23</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The commodity forms in which Scott sold his labour were no more ready to assume a determinate form than the money for which he exchanged them. Until the end of the eighteenth century, authors&#8217; agreements with publishers normally involved the outright sale of copyright for a one-time payment or, in exceptional cases, for other consideration such as an annuity. The transfer of copyright would be embodied in the delivery of fair copy to the press, and, from the point of view of the author, copyright as an abstraction would remain invisible. Scott&#8217;s contracts were very different. For all of the Waverley novels, he retained the copyright at the time of first publication and sold only the right to publish editions of a specified size. The copyrights to the first nine of the series were sold to Constable in a separate agreement in 1819; Scott retained his subsequent copyrights until he became insolvent in 1826. Scott&#8217;s contracts are thus documents in the historical development of commodity forms in which intellectual labor circulates independently of any particular material embodiment. In his practice, however, this apparent independence is invariably qualified. Scott did not merely license his publishers to print editions of his work; he ensured that the physical books making up the edition would be printed at his press. The mass sale of his copyrights to Constable in 1819 was accompanied by a gift of all the corresponding manuscripts&#8212;whose return Scott demanded when in 1826 he sued to recover the copyrights on the grounds that they hadn&#8217;t been paid for. The commodity forms involved in these transactions&#8212;and indeed the nature of the transactions themselves&#8212;prove to be as indeterminate as the money that mediates them.</p>
<p class=""><strong>24</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;It is my main theoretical claim in this essay that the indeterminate form in which Scott sold the labor embodied in his novels is allegorized in traits of the novels themselves. The most important of these for my purpose is their anonymity.<a href="#11">&#160;[11]</a><a name="back11">&#160;</a> <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Waverley</span>, the first novel of the series, was published anonymously in 1814; upon its success, the next two were published as by &#8220;the Author of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Waverley</span>.&#8221; Subsequent novels either appeared under this signature, or were presented by &#8220;editors&#8221; under obviously fictitious names as works deriving from oral or manuscript traditions. Very soon, this kind of elaborate disguise of the author&#8217;s identity was recognized as itself a trait of what came to be known as the Waverley novels. Though I am afraid that at this point the analogy will seem fanciful, the identity of the Author of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Waverley</span>, like that of capital itself in Marx&#8217;s account, becomes an effect of serial self-reference and self-disguise.</p>
<p class=""><strong>25</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Scott himself seems to have half believed that there was an uncanny connection between the anonymity of his work as a writer of fiction and the historically unprecedented sums he made by it. In writing about his earnings, he tends to describe them as if they had been gained by a deception, or else by magic. Consider the following, published in a retrospect of his career written well after insolvency had forced Scott to give up his incognito. Looking back at his the period of his anonymity, he writes that &#8220;in the pen of this nameless romancer, I seemed to possess something like the secret fountain of coined gold and pearls vouchsafed to the traveller of the Eastern Tale " (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">Chronicles of the Canongate</span>, Introduction; <span xmlns="" class="titlem">WN</span> 19: 321). One striking point about this figure is that even as Scott in a signed preface acknowledges his identity as author of the Waverley novels, he disavows it, referring in the third person to &#8220;the nameless romancer&#8221; who held the pen that composed them. Another is that the figure&#8217;s identification of the pen and the fountain is founded as much on the fact that they are both secret as on their apparently limitless flow. Taken as a whole, the figure aligns the authorship of the Waverley novels with possession of the money for which they were sold, both the money and the novels being tokens of an identity that is constitutively secret and fated to vanish when revealed.<a href="#12">&#160;[12]</a><a name="back12">&#160;</a></p>
<p class=""><strong>26</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The anonymity of the Waverley novels was not merely an extrinsic fact about them. Rather, it reiterated on the title page formal and thematic preoccupations with signature, anonymity, and disguise that also appear in the body of the texts. Each of the first three of the series has a protagonist who is effectively separated from his signature. The protagonists of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Guy Mannering</span> and <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> cannot sign because they do not know their own names. Waverley knows his all too well; the romance of his life begins when he is separated from it by the theft of his signet ring. Without his knowledge the signet is used to enlist him as a supporter of the 1745 Jacobite uprising&#8212;and in so doing, ironically, to constitute for him the true symbolic identity he is destined to assume. In each of these novels, then, Scott works a gambit in which the protagonist&#8217;s proper signature is hidden from him and from other characters. In Scott&#8217;s subsequent fiction the deception of characters about their own identity is less characteristic than the deception of the reader; it becomes a favorite device of his to introduce a major character under a disguise that is only gradually lifted. Often the character is the monarch or a claimant of the throne, as in the cases of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Ivanhoe</span>, <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Quentin Durward</span>, and <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Redgauntlet</span>. Even where the reader is in on the secret, Scott&#8217;s monarchs are typically as fond of masquerade, concealment, and bluff as the Author of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Waverley</span> himself.</p>
<p class=""><strong>27</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The Waverley novels often represent a narrative of the protagonist&#8217;s self-discovery; in these narratives, the protagonist&#8217;s proper name and symbolic identity are hidden in the world the novel represents, from which they emerge to view before the close. They are often embodied in a material token, the symbolon, such as Waverley&#8217;s signet or Elspeth Mucklebackit&#8217;s ring in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>. From a formal standpoint, such narratives are a guarantee of closure; the novel sets no problems and presents no appearances for which it does not contain the corresponding solution or reality. The material token that the novel represents as guaranteeing the identity of its protagonist thus also figures its identity with itself.</p>
<p class=""><strong>28</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Precisely because it recurs from novel to novel, the protagonist&#8217;s narrative of self-discovery is a central topic in criticism of Scott&#8217;s fiction;<a href="#13">&#160;[13]</a><a name="back13">&#160;</a> among the effects of its recurrence is to undermine the closure that it also guarantees. At the opening of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> the protagonist presents himself to the novel&#8217;s title character under the name of Lovel. It emerges however that the name is a disguise which he has been using to conceal the name under which he was raised, that of Neville. Finally, at the novel&#8217;s close, the antiquary learns that he himself possesses the information necessary to discover the truth about his friend&#8217;s birth, and is able to inform him that his name is no more Neville than it is Lovel, but is rather William Geraldin. In this last reversal the dupe and the subject of knowledge change places with a symmetrical neatness that provides the novel&#8217;s final cadence. The effect of closure is however undermined by the traits that <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>&#8217;s protagonist shares with those of other novels. These traits liken him for instance to Waverley, to Harry Bertram, to Frank Osbaldistone, and to others from other novels in the series.<a href="#14">&#160;[14]</a><a name="back14">&#160;</a> The truth of the protagonist&#8217;s identity and filiation was only apparently contained within a single text; as soon as this appearance is breached, so too are the borders of the text itself.</p>
<p class=""><strong>29</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In some of the paratexts with which Scott increasingly surrounded his novels as the series developed, he dramatizes the permeability of their borders by putting characters from different novels together in a single scene and even allowing them encounters with the anonymous Author who invented them. The most elaborate such paratext is the introduction to <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Tales of the Crusaders</span>, published in 1825; it presents itself as the transcript of a meeting between the still-anonymous Author of Waverley and a miscellaneous collection of characters from the novels&#8212;or, where this would violate chronology, of their descendants. Present therefore are Jonathan Oldbuck of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>, Josiah Cargill of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">St. Ronan&#8217;s Well</span>, Lawrence Templeton, the purported editor of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Ivanhoe</span>, Captain Clutterbuck of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Monastery</span> and <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Fortunes of Nigel</span>, the son of Dandie Dinmont of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Guy Mannering</span> and so forth. The introduction&#8217;s conceit is that the characters, along with the Author, have produced the Waverley novels already in print collectively, in accordance with &#8220;the doctrine so well laid down by the immortal Adam Smith, concerning the division of labour&#8221; (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">Tales of the Crusaders</span>, Introduction; <span xmlns="" class="titlem">WN</span> 19: 11).<a href="#15">&#160;[15]</a><a name="back15">&#160;</a> They meet here as joint proprietors of what the Author of Waverley describes as &#8220;the valuable property which has accumulated under our common labour&#8221; (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">Tales of the Crusaders</span>, Introduction; <span xmlns="" class="titlem">WN</span> 19: 11). By the late twentieth century characters could be a form of intellectual property, and a text representing in a single scene characters from divers sources is thus in our own day not only an example of the intertextual citation of character but also of the social circulation of value.<a href="#16">&#160;[16]</a><a name="back16">&#160;</a> For Scott, the assembly of the characters is more ambiguous: they appear as proprietors as well as property, and even the Author of Waverley himself, when he becomes a character in a Waverley novel, becomes a part of the property of which he is also the proprietor. The breaching of the novelistic border effected by paratext here generates an incoherence or internal differentiation in the notion of property as such.</p>
<p class=""><strong>30</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;To put the point otherwise, I am claiming that the difficulty in the Waverley novels of identifying certain characters, like the difficulty of identifying the author, allegorizes the difficulty of identifying the value form of the novel itself. Like the King, the protagonist, or the author, the Waverley novel too comes hedged about by disguises and proxies in the form of prefaces, frames, and apparent narrative dead ends. Insofar as these formal traits are shared by novels with different historical settings they are anachronisms; in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> we saw that the anachronism of disputing the monarch&#8217;s legitimacy is an explicit theme, conveyed by staging the difference between the Jacobite and Whig positions as a dispute between antiquaries and reducing it to a series of disagreements over the authenticity and value of curiosities.</p>
<p class=""><strong>31</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;These disagreements, however, remain unresolved at the novel&#8217;s close. Moreover, the botched or disputed purchase of the curiosity is one of the forms in which it presents <span class="foreign"><em>en travesti</em></span> the exchange of money for money. This exchange, which Marx was to identify as the elementary form of capital, appears in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> only as a mistake or a deception. The exchange M-&gt;M in Marx enables an identification; in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>, quite the contrary, it is structured by difference and masquerade. The novel&#8217;s insistence on the problem of relating money to money, indeed on the problem of identifying money, leads me to propose that in its allegorical dimension, as is necessarily the case with allegory, it has more than one point of historical reference. Though the topic of money&#8217;s indeterminacy appears in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>&#8217;s representation of 1794 as an after-image of historic struggles that the novel regards as closed, it also falls on it as a shadow of the future in which the novel itself will be written and published.<a href="#17">&#160;[17]</a><a name="back17">&#160;</a></p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="body.1_div.1_div.3">
<h4 align="center">III</h4>
<p class=""><strong>32</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;For historical and geographical reasons, Scott had a particularly acute experience of the impossibility of fully identifying a capital: of specifying what is and what is not part of it at a given moment, and of symbolizing his own relation to it. Scott&#8217;s relations with his publishers were so complex that it is difficult to discover in them the underlying exchange of the product of his labor for money. The formal anonymity under which the novels appeared to the public was maintained, as a more or less transparent fiction, with their various publishers. For the most part Scott communicated with his publishers through the brothers John and James Ballantyne, who in functioning as his literary agents carried on correspondence for him in which he is typically referred by periphrasis, usually as the Author of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Waverley</span>. In his communications with his publishers themselves, then, Scott acts by proxy. As his hand is concealed in his negotiations with the publishers, moreover, so it is in the production of the novels themselves, of which the publishers were not shown the original manuscripts. Sometimes they were allowed to read transcriptions by James Ballantyne; more often they were only shown page proofs printed at Ballantyne&#8217;s press.</p>
<p class=""><strong>33</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;James Ballantyne&#8217;s press was thus the medium in which the work of Scott&#8217;s hand was transmuted into the anonymous Authorship of the Waverley novels. It was not, however, only as a producer and seller of fiction that Scott&#8217;s identity was hidden by the Ballantynes. Much more closely held than the secret of his authorship was the further secret that Scott himself owned more than half of Ballantyne&#8217;s printing office and was in fact the dominant partner.<a href="#18">&#160;[18]</a><a name="back18">&#160;</a> All Scott&#8217;s contracts for his novels stipulated that they be printed at Ballantyne&#8217;s; he was moreover paid for them through Ballantyne&#8217;s, in such a way that the distinction between the payment for the <em xmlns="">right</em> to print a specified number of copies of a work and the payment for the <em xmlns="">printed copies themselves</em> is far from explicit. Using the Ballantynes as intermediaries, Scott confronts his publishers at once and&#8212;on my reading of the contracts&#8212;indistinguishably as the seller of a copyright and as the seller of printed volumes.</p>
<p class=""><strong>34</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The mystification of Scott&#8217;s identity as an author is thus inseparable from the mystification of the commodity form into which his written work was absorbed when it was sold and became capital. This mystification is in part due to the relatively recent appearance of copyright as a commodity form in its own right.<a href="#19">&#160;[19]</a><a name="back19">&#160;</a> But its fundamental determinant in Scott&#8217;s case is as a reflection of the money-form in which the value of Scott&#8217;s labor was realized. No more in Scotland in 1815 than at other times and places could transactions on the scale of Scott&#8217;s and Constable&#8217;s have conveniently been carried out in cash. David Hewitt estimates Scott&#8217;s share of the profits from the first 5000 copies of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> at about &#163;1682 (364), independent of his share of the profits from the printing-office. In England during the period of the Bank Restriction Act (1797-1821), and in Scotland at any time since the early eighteenth century, the payment of such a sum in legal tender coin would have been almost unthinkable. The actually circulating currency, as we have seen, comprised a regionally variable combination of token silver used as change and of different kinds of locally-issued paper instruments that served as money-substitutes. Legal tender was at this period effectively unavailable throughout Britain, and especially so in Scotland.</p>
<p class=""><strong>35</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;For the immediate discharge of debts, therefore, in 1815 Scots used the token silver currency of the Royal Mint in London and banknotes issued by Scots banks. For the purposes of trade, however, which was normally conducted on credit, the usual instrument was the bill of exchange, as it had been throughout Britain for more than a hundred years. A bill of exchange is draft by a creditor on a debtor, made payable to a third party at a specified date and place. Bills of exchange originated as a means of making payments at a distance, but in the eighteenth century they came to be used as a way of extending credit in transactions among producers, merchants, and tradespeople even within a single locality. Bills continue nonetheless to articulate place: a bill on London, for instance, would in Edinburgh carry a premium over one payable locally, owing to the trade imbalance between Scotland and the South.</p>
<p class=""><strong>36</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The bill extended credit by deferring payment: if a retailer bought commodities from a producer, the latter would draw a bill on the former, payable at a date when the commodities could be expected to have sold, enabling the retailer to pay it with the proceeds. Normally, the drawer of the bill, wanting ready money, would take it at once to a bank, which would give cash for it at a discounted rate, taking interest for the time until it fell due. This was broadly the system by which Scott received payment for his fiction. Thus, contracting for <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> in January of 1815 he drew bills dated at six, twelve, and eighteen months on the publishers, Constable and Co. in Edinburgh and Longmans in London. Acting through James Ballantyne, Scott would at once have discounted the bills, thus obtaining&#8212;at the cost of some interest&#8212;his half of the profits for the first 5000 copies before he even began to write the novel. As <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> was slated for publication in early June, the publishers expected it to be bringing in revenue before they had to pay even the first set of bills&#8212;though in the event Scott was more than a year late with it, causing some anxious correspondence between Longmans and Constable.<a href="#20">&#160;[20]</a><a name="back20">&#160;</a></p>
<p class=""><strong>37</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;When he sold his fiction, then, Scott encountered a capital whose identity, like his own identity as an author, was mediated and hedged about with substitutes. The capital into which his labor was incorporated could appear to him only in the dispersed form of the bills of exchange that served as its representatives. This form of appearance necessarily obscured from him its borders and indeed its mode of existence as property. The example of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> has shown us how a publishing house&#8212;or any other business&#8212;could operate without investing money in an undertaking at the outset. In negotiating for an advance, then, Scott would consider not the actual assets of his publishers, but the ease with which he would be able to discount their bills&#8212;a question decided by the general state of their credit, and more specifically by the number of their bills already outstanding and in the hands of the banks. Scott insisted that Longmans be brought in as the London co-publisher of his second novel, <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Guy Mannering</span>, and then of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>, precisely because fewer of their bills were in the Edinburgh market than of Constable&#8217;s, and he wanted to give Constable&#8217;s credit a rest.<a href="#21">&#160;[21]</a><a name="back21">&#160;</a> The market value of a bill thus depended on the state of an entire circulation of bills on which the acceptor&#8217;s name appeared. For this reason, it represented a capital only visible in dispersal, having been at no time in the immediate possession of any single individual.</p>
<p class=""><strong>38</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;This effect of dispersal was exacerbated by the fact that bills circulated by endorsement. As we have seen, a bill needed not be held until its due date; it could be discounted at a bank, or it could be used by its drawer to make payments in further transactions. In either case, the bill would change hands at a price determined by the time left until it fell due. As it did so, each person through whose hands it passed would endorse it, beginning with the original drawer. Each endorser became liable to pay the bill if the acceptor and earlier endorsers failed to do so. The value of a bill in circulation was thus supported not only by the credit of its original acceptor but also by that of its drawer and very likely by a series of other endorsers.</p>
<p class=""><strong>39</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In taking payment for his fiction by means of bills, therefore, Scott legally made himself liable to pay again the very payment he took. The reason why the hazards of trade were so notorious throughout the eighteenth century, and why book-keeping was so difficult, was that neither the acceptance of a payment nor the discharge of a debt could be considered final until the bill involved had finally been paid by its original acceptor&#8212;possibly years after many of the transactions in which it had played a part.<a href="#22">&#160;[22]</a><a name="back22">&#160;</a> In the crash of 1826, many of the debts of Constable that Scott was required to pay were thus debts which had originally been due to him in return for novels promised or actually written.</p>
<p class=""><strong>40</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;To be paid by bill was thus for Scott invariably to sign; and since after <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Waverley</span> itself he always had an advance on his share of the profits, Scott <em xmlns="">wrote his novels to make sure that the bills he had signed were retired</em>. Scott wrote, in short, <em xmlns="">to withdraw his signature from circulation</em>. And we recall that in mentioning his signature, we are in fact referring to a hand that was until 1826 concealed behind those of James and John Ballantyne&#8212;far more so in entering into bill transactions than it was in producing fiction. The major reason for Scott&#8217;s employment of a literary agent and for his secret ownership of a printing works was not to conceal his identity as the Author of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Waverley</span>, but to conceal the extent of his potential liability in the bill market and so extend his ability, using his proxies, to discount new bills. Scott increased his liabilities by personal expenditure, but the fundamental cause of his exposure in the bill market and eventual insolvency was the historical necessity that dictated the mode of his payment. The phenomenon of the Waverley novels could not have been financed by a capital embodied in a retail bookselling establishment or in a printing shop, as publishing ordinarily had been hitherto.<a href="#23">&#160;[23]</a><a name="back23">&#160;</a> Constable could not have paid Scott the unprecedented sums he received, nor financed the publication of the novels in the size and variety of editions that he did, without mobilizing bank capital through loans secured by the signatures on his bills.</p>
<p class=""><strong>41</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The means by which Scott was paid for his novels thus make it extraordinarily difficult to say when the sale and purchase of a given novel have been completed. When he is paid with a bill, Scott involves himself, and his proxies, in an indeterminate series of future transactions and obligations; this fact is reflected in the serial character of the novels themselves and the series of mutually supporting signatures that they bear. To put the point otherwise, when Scott accepted payment, he also assumed an obligation. The internal difference in the money form in which he realized the value of his work was the specific form in which he encountered the difference of capital from itself, and it is reflected in the internal self-differentiation of his novels and of the Authorship they embody.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="body.1_div.1_div.4">
<h4 align="center">Appendix on the texts of the Waverley novels</h4>
<p class=""><strong>42</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Their staging in what appears to be a single text of different and contradictory versions of the author-function is one of the Waverley novels&#8217; cardinal features, and it has determined my use of the text of Scott&#8217;s final edition of the novels, which he termed his Magnum Opus, as the source for citations in this essay.<a href="#24">&#160;[24]</a><a name="back24">&#160;</a> In the Magnum text, Scott appears as the no longer-anonymous author, as editor and annotator, and also as a character and as proprietor. This multiple self-inscription is an extension of the internally differentiated representations of authorship that appeared in the novels and their paratexts from the very outset, which are my topic here.</p>
<p class=""><strong>43</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In one of these representations, the Introductory Epistle to <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Fortunes of Nigel</span>, the &#8220;eidolon&#8221; or image of the Author of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Waverley</span> appears&#8212;in the act of correcting proof for the very volume in which he is described&#8212;at the back of Archibald Constable&#8217;s Edinburgh bookshop (<span xmlns="" class="titlem">WN</span> 14: 8). The author is thus an emanation of the premises where the writer&#8217;s product is put into circulation and not of the scene of production itself. The social processes by which Scott&#8217;s labor was commodified and circulated were indeed integral to the shaping of the novels and the institution of their authorship. This was as true for the first editions as for any others. Before they were shown to his publishers, Scott&#8217;s novels were transcribed and usually set up in print by John and James Ballantyne. During this process they underwent extensive correction and revision. Scott anticipated and relied on this work, which was part of the authoring of the novels.</p>
<p class=""><strong>44</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;By far and away the most fully documented and carefully edited version of Scott&#8217;s fiction ever to appear is the recently completed Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels (EEWN). Though this edition will be invaluable to future scholarship on Scott, as it has been to my own, the texts it establishes must be used with some caution, as its editorial procedures do not take sufficient account of the novels&#8217; social origin. The general editor states that the EEWN aims to produce an &#8220;ideal text&#8221; of the novels&#8217; first editions (Hewitt xv),<a href="#25">&#160;[25]</a><a name="back25">&#160;</a> rectifying errors that were the result of haste and pressure in the production process. As we have seen, however, this process was irreducibly social. No more than any of their successors were the first editions of the Waverley novels the sole product of the historical Sir Walter Scott; yet the EEWN announces that integral to its project is &#8220;a return to the authentic Scott &#8221; (Hewitt xii), to be achieved by stripping away from the first edition texts &#8220;mistakes&#8221; introduced there by those whom the editors characterize as &#8220;intermediaries&#8221;&#8212;James Ballantyne and other copyists, compositors, and copyeditors.</p>
<p class=""><strong>45</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The result is a series of texts that are fundamentally unhistorical. Neither a version of the first editions, in whose production Scott&#8217;s collaboration with the so-called intermediaries played an essential part, nor a presentation of Scott&#8217;s manuscripts, the Edinburgh edition of the novels too often corresponds to no historically specifiable state of the texts.</p>
<p class=""><strong>46</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The anomalies introduced into the novels by this editorial practice are in several cases substantial and thematically significant. I will give a summary account of three examples:</p>
<p class=""><strong>47</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;1) Since Lockhart&#8217;s biography in 1838 it has been known that Scott was persuaded by James Ballantyne to alter the last chapter of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">St. Ronan&#8217;s Well</span> after the novel had been set up in type. At issue was a revelation in the <span class="foreign"><em>d&#233;nouement</em></span> that the hero and the heroine had been lovers before she was tricked into a feigned wedding with someone else. Ballantyne objected to the supposed indecency; after protesting, Scott acquiesced and altered the passage in which the revelation occurs. The censored version was the one published in the first and every subsequent edition; Mark Weinstein, the editor of the Edinburgh edition, however prints the text of the original proof (363-64, 403-04). By so doing he may arguably recover a more &#8220;authentic&#8221; Scott than the one who actually approved the other version&#8212;but he produces a text that effaces an important effect of the novel&#8217;s social production.</p>
<p class=""><strong>48</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;2) As in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">St. Ronan&#8217;s Well</span>, a textual crux in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> arises from Scott&#8217;s revision during the production process of the first edition. In this case&#8212;which I have discussed at more length above&#8212;there is no evidence of pressure from any of the &#8220;intermediaries.&#8221; Rather, Scott altered the <span class="foreign"><em>d&#233;nouement</em></span> of the novel he had originally written to another that he apparently preferred. It was the revised text that appeared in every edition of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> he published. Unfortunately, in making the revision, Scott introduced an anomaly into the sequence of events that he narrates, making an effect precede its cause. On the grounds of narrative coherence, therefore, the novel&#8217;s editor, David Hewitt, who is also the EEWN General Editor, has restored Scott&#8217;s first version from the manuscript. There is no question here of restoring the work of an authentic Scott that has been obscured by other hands; Hewitt&#8217;s decision aims rather to correct what appears to him a mistake of Scott&#8217;s own&#8212;a mistake, moreover, that exists only if the novel is judged by standards of narrative coherence for which there is every evidence Scott cared very little.</p>
<p class=""><strong>49</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;3) Most egregious is the case of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Bride of Lammermoor</span>. The dating of this novel&#8217;s action has long been a matter of dispute;<a href="#26">&#160;[26]</a><a name="back26">&#160;</a> in every edition Scott published there are indications that point to dates in the eighteenth century both before and after the crucial year of 1707, when the Act of Union ended Scotland&#8217;s existence as an independent kingdom. The historical events on which Scott based his story, moreover, belong in the seventeenth century, and traces of this setting also made their way into the novel. The editor of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Bride</span> for EEWN, J. H. Alexander, follows Jane Millgate in the view that the action of the novel in its first edition can best be dated just before the Act, between 1702 and 1707. This dating is perhaps more plausible than any other; nonetheless, it requires a distinctly tendentious editorial note explaining away passages that seem to refer to a date after the union (Alexander 333-35). Worse yet, to prevent the date from slipping the other way, to before 1702 when Queen Anne ascended the English throne, it requires the explaining away of several references to the reigning monarch as male and in one passage the outright emendation of the word &#8220;King&#8221; to read &#8220;Queen&#8221; instead (Alexander 209, 334 and 337n. 9). Alexander makes this emendation <em xmlns="">without warrant from any prior printed or manuscript version of the text</em>.</p>
<p class=""><strong>50</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;In so doing, Alexander effaces the historical fact of a mistake or inconsistency and deprives the text of its status as an historical artifact. The appeal to the authority of the &#8220;authentic Scott&#8221; has here been stripped of any historical content whatsoever and has become the pure means of imposing an arbitrary formal coherence on his novel.</p>
<p class=""><strong>51</strong>.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Recent interest in the cultures of collecting and antiquarianism has also brought the novel new attention. Lee 90-101 gives a particularly full account of the practices of antiquarianism in late eighteenth-century Britain and of their embeddedness in the institutions of the marketplace and consequent conflict with an organic or Burkean historicism. A contrasting argument that sees the novel as countering charges of unmanliness leveled against Burke in the 1790&#8217;s appears in Goode. Ferris discusses the contrast between the enlightened historian and the antiquary in Romantic-era discourse, with special attention to Jonathan Oldbuck in <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>. See also Malley for a discussion of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> in the context of Scott&#8217;s own antiquarian collections and of the construction of the &#8220;new/old&#8221; structure of Abbotsford.</p>
</div>
<div class="citations" id="body.1_div.1_div.5">
<h4 align="center">Works Cited</h4>
<div type="listBibl">
<p class="hang">Alexander, J.H., ed. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Bride of Lammermoor</span>. <span xmlns="" class="titles">The Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels.</span> Vol 7a. Edinburgh and New York: Edinburgh University Press and Columbia University Press, 1995. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Benjamin, Walter. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Arcades Project</span>. Trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Benjamin, Walter. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Origin of German Tragic Drama</span>. Trans. John Osborne. London: NLB, 1977. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Clapham, J. H. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Bank of England, a History</span>. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Constable, Thomas. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Archibald Constable, and His Literary Correspondents</span>. 3 vols. Edinburgh: Edmonston &amp; Douglas, 1873. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Defoe, Daniel. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Complete English Tradesman</span>. 3rd ed. 2 vols. London: C. Rivington, 1732. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Duncan, Ian. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Modern Romance and Transformations of the Novel: The Gothic, Scott, and Dickens</span>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Duncan, Ian. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Scott&#8217;s Shadow: The Novel in Romantic Edinburgh</span>. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Elam, Diane. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Romancing the Postmodern</span>. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Feather, John. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">A History of British Publishing</span>. London: Croom Helm, 1988. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Feltes, N. N. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Modes of Production of Victorian Novels</span>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Ferris, Ina. "Pedantry and the Question of Enlightenment History: The Figure of the Antiquary in Scott." <span xmlns="" class="titlej">European Romantic Review</span> 13.3 (2002): 273-83. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Ferris, Ina. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Achievement of Literary Authority: Gender, History, and the Waverley Novels</span>. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Gibson, John. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Reminiscences of Sir Walter Scott</span>. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1871. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Goode, Mike. "Dryasdust Antiquarianism and Soppy Masculinity: The Waverly Novels and the Gender of History." <span xmlns="" class="titlej">Representations</span> 82 (2003): 52-86. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Grierson, Herbert. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Sir Walter Scott, Bart</span>. London: Constable and Co, 1938. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Hewitt, David, ed. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>. <span xmlns="" class="titles">The Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels.</span> Vol 3. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1993. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Johnson, Edgar. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Sir Walter Scott: the Great Unknown</span>. New York: Macmillan, 1970. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Kindleberger, Charles P. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">A Financial History of Western Europe</span>. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Lacan, Jacques. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-1960</span>. Trans. Dennis Porter. Vol 7. New York: Norton, 1992. Print. <span xmlns="" class="titles">The Seminar of Jacques Lacan</span>.</p>
<p class="hang">Lee, Yoon Sun. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Nationalism and Irony: Burke, Scott, Carlyle</span>. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Luk&#225;cs, Georg. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Historical Novel</span>. Trans. Hannah Mitchell and Stanley Mitchell. London: Merlin Press, 1962. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Malley, Shawn. "Walter Scott&#8217;s Romantic Archaeology: New/Old Abbotsford and the Antiquary." <span xmlns="" class="titlej">SiR</span> 40.2 (2001): 233-51. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Marx, Karl. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Capital: Volume One</span>. Trans. Ben Fowkes. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Maxwell, Richard. "Inundations of Time: A Definition of Scott&#8217;s Originality." <span xmlns="" class="titlej">ELH</span> 68.2 (2001): 419-68. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">McCracken-Flesher, Caroline. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Possible Scotlands: Walter Scott and the Story of Tomorrow</span>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Millgate, Jane. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Scott&#8217;s Last Edition: A Study in Publishing History</span>. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1987. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Millgate, Jane. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Walter Scott: The Making of the Novelist</span>. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Postone, Moishe. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx&#8217;s Critical Theory</span>. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Robertson, Fiona. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Legitimate Histories: Scott, Gothic, and the Authorities of Fiction</span>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Rose, Mark. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright</span>. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1993. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Scott, Walter. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Critical and Miscellaneous Essays of Sir Walter Scott</span>. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Carey &amp; Hart, 1841. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Scott, Walter. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Journal of Sir Walter Scott</span>. Ed. W.E.K Anderson. 12 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Scott, Walter. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Letters of Sir Walter Scott</span>. Ed. H.J.C Grierson. London: Constable &amp; Co, 1932. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Smith, Adam. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations</span>. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">St Clair, William. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period</span>. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Stewart, B.H.I.H. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Scottish Coinage</span>. London: Spink, 1955. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Sutherland, John. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Life of Walter Scott</span>. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Sutherland, Kathryn. "Fictional Economies: Adam Smith, Walter Scott and the Nineteenth Century Novel." <span xmlns="" class="titlej">ELH</span> 54.1 (1987): 97-127. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Weinstein, Mark, ed. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">St Ronan&#8217;s Well</span>. <span xmlns="" class="titles">The Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels.</span> Vol 16. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Welsh, Alexander. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Hero of the Waverley Novels: With New Essays on Scott</span>. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Print.</p>
<p class="hang">Wilt, Judith. <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Secret Leaves: The Novels of Walter Scott</span>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Print.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="notes">
<div class="noteHeading"> <h4 align="center">Notes</h4> </div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="1">[1]</a> With the permission of <a class="link_ref" href="http://cambridge.org/us/" title="Cambridge University Press">Cambridge University Press</a>, this essay includes excerpts from <span xmlns="" class="titlem"><a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" class="link_ref" href="http://cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521193795" title="Real Money and Romanticism">Real Money and Romanticism</a></span>, by Matthew Rowlinson. Copyright &#169; 2010 Matthew Rowlinson. <a href="#back1">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="2">[2]</a> For much of the twentieth century criticism of the Waverley novels had their place in the history of realism as its dominant topic; the facetiousness of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>&#8217;s representation of history made it for this criticism a marginal title in the series. Duncan&#8217;s treatment of the work results from his stated aim of taking seriously the fictional character of Scott&#8217;s novels. The novel&#8217;s stress on the unreliability of antiquarian narratives has led other critics to adopt it as a key text in readings of Scott as a novelist whose realism is strongly qualified by skepticism and a belief in the contingency of representations of the past; see Elam and McCracken-Flesher. The novel has also attracted interest as one of several among the Waverley novels in which the claim of historical realism coexists more or less uneasily with an adoption of the conventions of gothic; see Robertson. <a href="#back2">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="3">[3]</a> For a bravura return to Luk&#224;cs as an interpreter of Scott in an essay that, unlike Luk&#224;cs himself, deals at length with <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>, see Maxwell. Regarding the &#8220;emptiness&#8221; of history in the Waverley novels, of which the non-events of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span> provide the essay&#8217;s paradigm, see Maxwell 444 and 455. <a href="#back3">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="4">[4]</a> See the argument that antiquarianism&#8217;s &#8220;family resemblance to commerce&#8221; makes it the &#8220;negation&#8221; of traditionalism in Lee 78-79. <a href="#back4">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="5">[5]</a> Alexander Welsh treats Scott&#8217;s protagonists as types of a particular historical formation of masculinity in relation to landed property in his <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Hero of the Waverley Novels</span>. More recently, Ian Duncan has read the characters of the Waverley novels as types of contrasting narrative genres and discursive modes, whose dialectical engagement the novel stages through their interaction&#8212;see Duncan <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Modern Romance and Transformations of the Novel</span>. Among critical works on Scott for which character is not a crucial analytic category, I should note readings of the Waverley novels&#8217; construction of authorship in Ferris and Wilt. As I shall do in this essay, Wilt argues that there is a homology between the quest romance structure of the Waverley novels and their production of authorship as self-concealment. <a href="#back5">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="6">[6]</a> Ochiltree&#8217;s Scots vernacular refers to money as either &#8220;siller&#8221; or &#8220;gowd.&#8221; He distinguishes regularly between the two, refusing gifts of gold as excessive, and begging only for silver. In this respect, as in others, the novel is meticulous in its registration of the heterogeneity of the circulating currency in late eighteenth-century Scotland. <a href="#back6">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="7">[7]</a> For the rationale of this emendation to his first edition base text, see Hewitt 390. See 370-80 for the evolution of the text through successive editions in Scott&#8217;s lifetime. <a href="#back7">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="8">[8]</a> See the appendix to this essay for a discussion of the treatment of this and other textual problems in the Edinburgh Edition of the Waverley Novels (EEWN). <a href="#back8">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="9">[9]</a> For discussion of capital as a subject in Marx, see Postone 75-81. <a href="#back9">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="10">[10]</a> From 1797 to 1821 the Bank Restriction Act forbade the Bank of England from redeeming its notes in gold. From 1817, the Bank began to mint gold in the form of a new coin with a one-pound face value, the sovereign. Owing to the overissue of notes that Restriction made possible, however, most of the early sovereigns were immediately taken out of the country rather than being used in Britain at a depreciated value. See Clapham 2: 63-64. <a href="#back10">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="11">[11]</a> For a rich treatment of Scott&#8217;s anonymous publication in the context of early nineteenth century Edinburgh print culture, see Duncan <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Scott&#8217;s Shadow</span>. <a href="#back11">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="12">[12]</a> Scott&#8217;s money and his incognito really did vanish together; as he faced insolvency in late 1825, he knew that one of the consequences would be his exposure as the Author of Waverley. Hence his complaint in his <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Journal</span>: &#8220;the wand of the Unknown is shivered in his grasp. He must henceforth be termed the Too well known&#8221; (Scott <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Journal</span> 40). Here too for Scott the magic of authorship is the magic of money, and both of them disappear when they are exposed to view. <a href="#back12">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="13">[13]</a> For Alexander Welsh this narrative is a &#8220;romance of property.&#8221; He argues that in the Waverley novels the protagonist&#8217;s discovery of his destiny, both as an heir and as a lover, involves accession to real estate. The identity-conferring power of this kind of property is distinguished from the effect of conveyables, from too close an association with which Scott &#8220;carefully protects&#8221; his heroes and heroines at the novels&#8217; endings (Welsh 79). <a href="#back13">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="14">[14]</a> For a discussion of fraternal similarities among the Waverley protagonists, see Welsh 27. <a href="#back14">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="15">[15]</a> For a treatment of this introduction, of Scott&#8217;s relation to Adam Smith, and of his understanding of his novels as a commercial enterprise, see Sutherland. <a href="#back15">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="16">[16]</a> Think of Warner Bros. cartoons that represent a variety of characters from their &#8220;stable,&#8221; or of the heterogeneous mass of personified intellectual properties that is Disney World. <a href="#back16">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="17">[17]</a> <em xmlns="">Untimeliness</em> is a crucial trait of the allegorical object in Walter Benjamin, whose conception of it as an historical remainder that has been wrenched into service as an arbitrary sign of modernity is the main theoretical point of reference in my reading of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>. See Benjamin <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Origin</span> 223-24 and also convolut J of <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Arcades Project</span>, on Baudelaire: &#8220;The stamp of time that imprints itself on antiquity presses out of it the allegorical configuration&#8221; (Benjamin <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Arcades Project</span> 239). <a href="#back17">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="18">[18]</a> Scott had known James Ballantyne since they were schoolboys together in Kelso. By 1800 Ballantyne was the owner of a thriving print-shop and a newspaper there; at that date Scott proposed to him that he should set up shop in Edinburgh. This he did in 1802, with the assistance of a &#163;500 loan from Scott, leaving the Kelso business in the hands of his brother Sandy. In 1805 Scott increased his investment in the firm to &#163;2008, becoming half-owner (Johnson 233). The partnership continued until the crash of 1826, with the exception of the years 1816-22, during which Scott assumed sole ownership of the firm, while Ballantyne continued to manage it at a salary of &#163;400 a year (Johnson 516, 764). Constable certainly knew that in dealing with the Ballantynes he was effectively dealing with Scott. On the other hand, in 1826 Scott was obliged to reveal his dealings to his own lawyer, who affirms that he had no idea that Scott was involved in the printing firm (Gibson 4-5). See also the discussion of this controversial aspect of Scott&#8217;s business dealings in Sutherland 97-98. <a href="#back18">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="19">[19]</a> See Rose 67-112 for an account of the eighteenth-century emergence of copyright as a form of abstract intellectual property created by an author&#8217;s labor. Copyright in this form replaced the earlier institution of copy; this was a license to print a given work granted by the Stationers&#8217; Guild and ultimately sustained by state power. The history of intellectual property began with the first copyright statute, passed in 1710; disputes over how the statute was to be applied were however not resolved until the House of Lords&#8217; verdict in Donaldson v. Becket in 1774. It was in the legal and philosophical debates over copyright during this period that the idea of the author as producer of an abstract intellectual property distinct from any of its material embodiments entered British jurisprudence and publishing practice. For another account of Donaldson v. Becket as a decisive moment for the whole subsequent history of intellectual property, see St. Clair 111-21. For a theory of the &#8220;commodity-text&#8221; as the form of abstract intellectual property that emerged in the period 1710-74 and an account of its difference from the &#8220;commodity-book,&#8221; see Feltes 7-8. <a href="#back19">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="20">[20]</a> For a general account of Scott&#8217;s contracts, see Grierson 145-46. For specific details of Scott&#8217;s payment for <span xmlns="" class="titlem">The Antiquary</span>, see the essay on the text in the EEWN edition, Hewitt 357-64. <a href="#back20">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="21">[21]</a> Scott <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Letters</span> 1: 473 <a href="#back21">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="22">[22]</a> ". . . hence it comes to be a proverbial Saying, <em xmlns="">That no man knows what a Tradesman is till he is dead</em>" (Defoe 2: 204). <a href="#back22">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="23">[23]</a> John Feather asserts that in the eighteenth century publishing was invariably associated with the retail sale of books; the earlier model, in which publishing is a branch of the printing trade, disappears in the seventeenth century (101, 132). <a href="#back23">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="24">[24]</a> For discussion of the Magnum Opus edition and the circumstances under which it was produced, see Millgate <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Scott&#8217;s Last Edition</span>. <a href="#back24">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="25">[25]</a> The general introduction including this statement appears in every volume of the edition published before 1999, and in an expanded and somewhat modified form after. <a href="#back25">BACK</a></p>
</div>
<div class="note">
<p class="letnote"><a name="26">[26]</a> A full discussion of the topic appears in Millgate <span xmlns="" class="titlem">Walter Scott: The Making of the Novelist</span> 171-73. <a href="#back26">BACK</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div><section class="field field-name-field-authored-by-secondary- field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Authored by (Secondary):&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="role:AUT"><a href="/person/rowlinson-matthew">Rowlinson, Matthew</a></div></div></section><section class="field field-name-field-parent-section field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Parent Section:&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/node/31532">Praxis Series</a></div></div></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-person-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Person:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/yoon-sun-lee" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Yoon Sun Lee</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/arthur-wardour" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Arthur Wardour</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/edie-ochiltree" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Edie Ochiltree</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/david-hewitt" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">David Hewitt</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/robert-cadell" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Robert Cadell</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/walter-scott" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Walter Scott</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/adam-smith" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Adam Smith</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/jonathan-oldbuck" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Jonathan Oldbuck</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/ian-duncan-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Ian Duncan</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/geraldin-neville" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Geraldin Neville</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/james-ballantyne" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">James Ballantyne</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-city-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">City:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/city/london" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">London</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/city/edinburgh" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Edinburgh</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-country-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Country:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/country/scotland" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Scotland</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-nines-discipline-s- field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">NINES Discipline(s):&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/nines-discipline/literature" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Literature</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-nines-type-s- field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">NINES Type(s):&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/nines-type/typescript" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Typescript</a></li></ul></section>Wed, 02 May 2012 22:31:54 +0000rc-admin22909 at http://www.rc.umd.eduA Chronology for 1808http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/qr/founding/chronology.html
<div class="field field-name-field-published field-type-date field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2005-02-01T00:00:00-05:00">February 2005</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><div align="center">
<h2><b><!-- #BeginEditable "title" -->Founding of the
<i>Quarterly Review</i><!-- #EndEditable --></b></h2>
<h3><b><!-- #BeginEditable "subtitle" -->A Chronology for 1808
<!-- #EndEditable --></b></h3>
</div>
<div align="center"></div><!-- #BeginEditable "body_content" -->
<p>The first issue of the <i>Quarterly Review</i> appeared in
March 1809.</p>
<p>The previous year, a number of developments, most related to
the building conservative opposition to the liberal
<i>Edinburgh Review</i>, precipitated the founding of the
journal.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">4 January</font></b> Robert Southey
to James Grahame states, "It will be well for Jeffrey if his
abuse of Wordsworth does not draw down vengeance upon his
head." (Curry, <i>New Letters of Robert Southey</i>, 469)</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">16 January</font></b> R. Wharton,
<i>Remarks on the Jacobinical Tendency of the "Edinburgh
Review"</i> published</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Note, also published in this year:<br />
<em>Edinburgh Reviewers.&mdash;some important and
interesting Remarks, occasioned by the censure cast by
these Reviewers upon the Methodists in their last
publication will be found in</em> No. 18 <em>of the New
Weekly Family Paper; called THE GUIDE.</em> [notice in the
<i>Courier</i> 27 May 1808].<br />
<br />
[Anon.] <i>A Reply to the Strictures of the Edinburgh
Review on the Foreign Policy of Marquis Wellesley's
Administration in India; comprising an examination of the
late transactions in the Carnatic. Third edition.</i>
London: T. Cadell &amp; W. Davies, 1808.<br />
<br />
[Anon.] <i>A Short Methodical Abstract, calm consideration,
and consequent appreciation, of the Edinburgh Review, on
the Exposition of P. de Cevallos.</i> Edinburgh: William
Blackwood; London: Longman [1808?].</p>
<p>[Anon.] <i>A Letter addressed to the Editor of the
Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle, relative to certain articles in
the Edinburgh Review.</i> [Signed, "A British
Protestant."]. London, [1808?].</p>
<p>[Mentor] <i>The dangers of the Edinburgh Review; or a
brief exposure of its principles in religion, morals and
politics.</i> London, 1808.</p>
<p>John Styles, <i>Strictures on two critiques in the
Edinburgh Review on the subject of Methodism and missions:
with remarks on the influence of reviews in general on
morals and happiness, in three letters to a friend.</i>
London: Williams and Smith, 1808.</p>
<p>And cf. John Ring. <i>The beauties of the Edinburgh
Review, alias the stinkpot of literature.</i> London,
1807.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b><font color="#000066">12 February</font></b> Robert
Southey to John Taylor Coleridge, "I am strongly moved by the
spirit to make an attack upon Jeffrey along his whole line,
beginning with his politics." (Southey, <i>Life</i>, 135)</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">4 March</font></b> George Canning
writes to Walter Scott thanking him for a copy of
<i>Marmion</i>.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">13 March</font></b> Walter Scott to
Lady Abercorn, "All the Whigs here are in arms against
<i>Marmion</i>...."</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">23 April</font></b> Walter Scott to
Anna Seward, says he admires Southey and Wordsworth for their
"upright undeviating morality ... with all they think and say
and write."</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">23 April</font></b> same to same,
"Nothing new of the literary kind ... except that Jeffrey has
written a very sharp review of <i>Marmion</i> ...." Scott
claims not to be distressed and states that he and Jeffrey went
over the review with mutual good humour. Same information is
repeated in Scott to Surtees, n.d. (But see June 20 below.)</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">ca. 28 May</font></b> <i>Edinburgh
Review</i> January number appears, contains negative review of
Walter Scott's <i>Marmion</i>. Sydney Smith writes against
missions to India, thus contributes to ongoing East India House
debate and rankles Robert Southey and key supporters of the
journal, the Saints.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">12 May</font></b> Octavius
Gilchrist (a friend of William Gifford's and later a reviewer
in the <i>Quarterly</i>) writes to Walter Scott; he mentions
his friend William Gifford a number of times.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">5 June</font></b> Octavius
Gilchrist writes to Walter Scott that John Murray would like to
contact Scott, to ask if he would edit the plays of Beaumont
and Fletcher.</p>
<p><font color="#000066"><b>20 June</b></font> Robert Southey
to Neville White, "I have not seen the Scotch review of
Marmion, but I have heard that on its appearance, Walter Scott
showed Jeffrey the letter in which I had refused to bear a part
in his review." (Southey, <i>Life</i>, 153).</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">ca. 10 September</font></b> "Don
Cevallos," a radical article by Francis Jeffrey and Henry
Brougham appears in <i>Edinburgh Review</i> [advertised for 10
September in <i>Monthly Literary Advertiser</i>; however, it
had been advertised in the <i>Courier</i> from 26 August.]</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">20 September</font></b> John Murray
arrives at Edinburgh, dines with Archibald Constable and James
Ballantyne. He and Ballantyne walk together, discover basis of
agreement for partnership, and similar views on the weakness of
Scott's relationship with Constable.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">21 September</font></b> Ballantyne
takes their conversation to Walter Scott, who is
sympathetic.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">26 September</font></b> Ballantyne
writes to John Murray that Scott will meet with them on
Saturday or Sunday.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">2 October</font></b> John Murray
arrives for two-day visit to Walter Scott at his Ashestiel
residence. Scott presses him to extend his stay. Richard Heber,
a mutual friend of George Canning and Walter Scott, is also
there; he and John Murray meet for the first time. Over the
next three days, Scott and the others develop the idea of a
journal to rival Constable's <i>Edinburgh Review</i>.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">3 October</font></b> Scott takes
John Murray and Heber sightseeing.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">4 October</font></b> Now joined by
James Ballantyne, the party go on another sightseeing tour.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">5 October</font></b> John Murray
and Ballantyne set out early for Edinburgh. John Murray writes
to his wife that his plans of the past twelve months concerning
a new conservative review and establishing a business
arrangement with Ballantyne and Scott have been realized beyond
his expectations.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">12 October</font></b> William
Gifford writes to George Canning.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">16 October</font></b> John Murray
arrives back in London.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">16 October</font></b> "Review of
the Exposition of Don Pedro Cevallos" <i>Examiner</i> Number 42
(October 16, 1808) 657-59.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">23 October</font></b> William
Erskine to his brother-in-law Archibald Campbell-Colquhoun,
Lord Advocate of Scotland, answers the Lord Advocate's letter
and returns Canning's, says "plan alluded to is already in some
measure begun. Murray ... went to Ashestiel" to suggest a
Review to oppose the <i>Edinburgh</i>, and to ask Scott to be
editor. Scott declined. Thinks if government is to give
support, editor should be in London. William Gifford has been
offered editorship. Thinks Canning has his eye on Gifford.
Malthus has agreed to assist. Scott will assist; has been hurt
by Jeffrey's <i>Marmion</i>.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">25 October</font></b> Walter Scott
to William Gifford, says he has received letter from Lord
Advocate who has been in correspondence with Canning, who
informs him that Gifford is to be editor. Recounts Murray's
visit to Ashestiel. States that Murray had had some earlier
communication with Canning on the subject of a Review,
"although indirectly" (through Stratford Canning?).
<i>Edinburgh Review</i> on Spain "have done the work great
injury with the public"</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">26 October</font></b> John Murray
writes to Walter Scott, has reason to believe government will
be supportive as he has seen William Gifford who spoke
circumspectly about having spoken with high politicos about the
need for a review; William Gifford has employed John Murray as
publisher for Dr. John Ireland, William Gifford's best
friend</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">27 October</font></b> Scott, in
letter to Archibald Campbell-Colquhoun, says he has read
Canning's letter and has replied; asks Campbell-Colquhoun to
forward that letter and a long letter to William Gifford (copy
to Canning); thinks William Gifford will eventually agree to
provide articles for the review; he does not know William
Gifford's address; the letter was approved by William
Erskine.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">31 October</font></b> Scott to
Joanna Baillie, denies harboring hard feelings toward Jeffrey,
but wishes the <i>Marmion</i> review had been couched in more
civil language.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">6 November</font></b> Robert
Southey writes to Walter Scott, is glad Scott has broken his
association with the <i>Edinburgh Review</i>.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">9 November</font></b> William
Gifford replies to Walter Scott's letter; says he has spoken
with Canning and Lord Hawkesbury about the review; Canning has
promised to speak with George Ellis, William Gifford with Rose;
thinks Jackson of Christ Church and other good men from Oxford
and Cambridge might be solicited; William Gifford warns Scott
about his poor health.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">9 November</font></b> Southey to
Herbert Hill, says he has communicated with Scott who has
broken with the <i>Edinburgh</i> for political reasons. Southey
thinks his refusal to write for the <i>Edinburgh</i> first
pricked Scott's conscience, and perhaps Scott also stung by
<i>Marmion</i> review. Gifford has asked Southey to write for
the new journal. Wants to write on the missionaries, to answer
Sydney Smith's anti-missionary articles in the
<i>Edinburgh</i>. In a letter to Grosvenor Bedford dated 11
November, Southey repeats his belief that he had pricked
Scott's conscience.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">11 November</font></b> George Ellis
writes to Walter Scott a detailed prospectus of what the review
should and should not be, that it should use popularity to
become a vehicle of instruction.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">15 November</font></b> John Murray
writes long letter to Walter Scott outlining his plan for the
review; reminds Scott that for almost two years he had had the
idea of a review opposing the principles of the <i>Edinburgh
Review</i>, and that he had written Canning about it one year
since. Tries to clarify who will author the lead article of the
first number; Gifford has asked Southey, against John Murray's
objections. Insists the journal must be independent of
government. Asks Scott's approval of a title for the journal,
<i>London</i> <i>Quarterly Review</i>. Declares the editor's
salary to be 200 pounds per annum and sets total payments to
contributors per number at 60 guineas.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">17 November</font></b> John Murray
writes a second long letter to Scott; says he has met William
Gifford again; William Gifford has communicated with Canning,
Lord Hawksebury, Mr. Long, and Huskisson; Southey has declined
writing the lead article on the war in Spain; John Murray will
write to Ballantyne.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">19 November</font></b> John Murray
to Walter Scott, has learned through William Gifford that the
Saints (parliamentary evangelicals under William Wilberforce),
who had been contemplating a review to counter the
<i>Edinburgh</i>, will now support their project. 19 November
Scott to Thomas Scott, says "a plot has been hatching by the
gentlemen who were active in the Anti-Jacobin paper..."</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">22 November</font></b> George
Ellis's second letter to Walter Scott on the review in receipt
of Scott's reply to his first; with Scott fears that Gifford's
health will lead to problems; does not know Southey, doubts his
political opinions are sound.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">24 to 27 November</font></b>
William Gifford and Canning in conference with George Ellis at
Claremont, Ellis's residence; for four days they discuss the
review.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">29 November</font></b> William
Gifford meets with George Canning; arranges an interview for
John Murray with Canning. George Ellis will write for the new
journal. George Ellis writes a third letter to Walter Scott;
discusses November 24-27 Claremont conference; appears Canning
is too busy to write for the review; Ellis agrees to undertake
the lead article on the war in Spain; calls for the politics of
the review to be temperate and independent of government.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">1 December</font></b> John Murray
writes to Walter Scott about the November 24-27 Claremont
conference; Samuel Rogers, Edward Copleston, and Reginald Heber
(Richard's brother) might be recruited; he and William Gifford
agree with Scott the review should avoid offending the
Saints.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">2 December</font></b> "Apostasy of
the <i>Edinburgh Review</i>," letter to editor of
<i>Courier</i> newspaper, by x.y.: "Thomas Paine never
published any thing more seditious than the last number of the
<i>Edinburgh Review</i>."</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">6 December</font></b> John Murray
writes to Walter Scott that Thomas Moore and Sotheby have
agreed to contribute reviews.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">18 December</font></b> George Ellis
writes to Walter Scott; everything is coming together; three
scientific men have been recruited.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">ca. 29 December</font></b> James
Pillans will write for the new journal. James Mill offers a
review (by another writer) on the West Indies. Mrs. Inchbald is
asked to contribute, but she is very diffident. William Gifford
meets with Canning and Ellis at Claremont.</p></div></div></div><section class="field field-name-field-parent-section field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Parent Section:&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/node/31537">Scholarly Resources</a></div></div></section><section class="field field-name-field-resource-index field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Parent Resource:&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/reference/qr/index.html">The Quarterly Review Archive</a></div></div></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-person-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Person:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/sydney-smith" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Sydney Smith</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/william-gifford" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">William Gifford</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/francis-jeffrey" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Francis Jeffrey</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/james-grahame" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">James Grahame</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/walter-scott" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Walter Scott</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/richard-heber" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Richard Heber</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/george-canning" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">George Canning</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/john-murray" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">John Murray</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/don-pedro-cevallos" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Don Pedro Cevallos</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/james-ballantyne" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">James Ballantyne</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-city-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">City:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/city/london" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">London</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/city/edinburgh" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Edinburgh</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-country-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Country:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/country/spain" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spain</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/country/india" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">India</a></li></ul></section>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:32:09 +0000rc-admin23659 at http://www.rc.umd.eduA Chronology for 1808http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/qr/chronology.html
<div class="field field-name-field-published field-type-date field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2005-02-01T00:00:00-05:00">February 2005</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><h2><!-- #BeginEditable "title" -->Founding of the <i>Quarterly Review</i><!-- #EndEditable --></h2>
<h2><!-- #BeginEditable "subtitle" -->A Chronology for 1808<!-- #EndEditable --></h2>
<div align="center">
<h2><!-- #BeginEditable "body_content" --></h2>
</div>
<blockquote>
<p>The first issue of the <i>Quarterly Review</i> appeared in March 1809.</p>
<p>The previous year, a number of developments, most related to the building conservative opposition to the liberal <i>Edinburgh Review</i>, precipitated the founding of the journal.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">4 January </b> Robert Southey to James Grahame states, "It will be well for Jeffrey if his abuse of Wordsworth does not draw down vengeance upon his head." (Curry, <i>New Letters of Robert Southey</i>, 469)</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">16 January </b> R. Wharton, <i>Remarks on the Jacobinical Tendency of the "Edinburgh Review"</i> published</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Note, also published in this year:<br/>
<em>Edinburgh Reviewers.&#8212;some important and interesting Remarks, occasioned by the censure cast by these Reviewers upon the Methodists in their last publication will be found in</em> No. 18 <em>of the New Weekly Family Paper; called THE GUIDE.</em> [notice in the <i>Courier</i> 27 May 1808].<br/>
<br/>
[Anon.] <i>A Reply to the Strictures of the Edinburgh Review on the Foreign Policy of Marquis Wellesley's Administration in India; comprising an examination of the late transactions in the Carnatic. Third edition.</i> London: T. Cadell &amp; W. Davies, 1808.<br/>
<br/>
[Anon.] <i>A Short Methodical Abstract, calm consideration, and consequent appreciation, of the Edinburgh Review, on the Exposition of P. de Cevallos.</i> Edinburgh: William Blackwood; London: Longman [1808?].</p>
<p>[Anon.] <i>A Letter addressed to the Editor of the Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle, relative to certain articles in the Edinburgh Review.</i> [Signed, "A British Protestant."]. London, [1808?].</p>
<p>[Mentor] <i>The dangers of the Edinburgh Review; or a brief exposure of its principles in religion, morals and politics.</i> London, 1808.</p>
<p>John Styles, <i>Strictures on two critiques in the Edinburgh Review on the subject of Methodism and missions: with remarks on the influence of reviews in general on morals and happiness, in three letters to a friend.</i> London: Williams and Smith, 1808.</p>
<p>And cf. John Ring. <i>The beauties of the Edinburgh Review, alias the stinkpot of literature.</i> London, 1807.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><b><font color="#000066">12 February </b> Robert Southey to John Taylor Coleridge, "I am strongly moved by the spirit to make an attack upon Jeffrey along his whole line, beginning with his politics." (Southey, <i>Life</i>, 135)</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">4 March </b> George Canning writes to Walter Scott thanking him for a copy of <i>Marmion</i>.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">13 March </b> Walter Scott to Lady Abercorn, "All the Whigs here are in arms against <i>Marmion</i>...."</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">23 April </b> Walter Scott to Anna Seward, says he admires Southey and Wordsworth for their "upright undeviating morality ... with all they think and say and write."</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">23 April </b> same to same, "Nothing new of the literary kind ... except that Jeffrey has written a very sharp review of <i>Marmion</i> ...." Scott claims not to be distressed and states that he and Jeffrey went over the review with mutual good humour. Same information is repeated in Scott to Surtees, n.d. (But see June 20 below.)</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">ca. 28 May </b> <i>Edinburgh Review</i> January number appears, contains negative review of Walter Scott's <i>Marmion</i>. Sydney Smith writes against missions to India, thus contributes to ongoing East India House debate and rankles Robert Southey and key supporters of the journal, the Saints.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">12 May </b> Octavius Gilchrist (a friend of William Gifford's and later a reviewer in the <i>Quarterly</i>) writes to Walter Scott; he mentions his friend William Gifford a number of times.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">5 June </b> Octavius Gilchrist writes to Walter Scott that John Murray would like to contact Scott, to ask if he would edit the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher.</p>
<p><font color="#000066"><b>20 June</b> Robert Southey to Neville White, "I have not seen the Scotch review of Marmion, but I have heard that on its appearance, Walter Scott showed Jeffrey the letter in which I had refused to bear a part in his review." (Southey, <i>Life</i>, 153).</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">ca. 10 September </b> "Don Cevallos," a radical article by Francis Jeffrey and Henry Brougham appears in <i>Edinburgh Review</i> [advertised for 10 September in <i>Monthly Literary Advertiser</i>; however, it had been advertised in the <i>Courier</i> from 26 August.]</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">20 September </b> John Murray arrives at Edinburgh, dines with Archibald Constable and James Ballantyne. He and Ballantyne walk together, discover basis of agreement for partnership, and similar views on the weakness of Scott's relationship with Constable.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">21 September </b> Ballantyne takes their conversation to Walter Scott, who is sympathetic.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">26 September </b> Ballantyne writes to John Murray that Scott will meet with them on Saturday or Sunday.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">2 October </b> John Murray arrives for two-day visit to Walter Scott at his Ashestiel residence. Scott presses him to extend his stay. Richard Heber, a mutual friend of George Canning and Walter Scott, is also there; he and John Murray meet for the first time. Over the next three days, Scott and the others develop the idea of a journal to rival Constable's <i>Edinburgh Review</i>.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">3 October </b> Scott takes John Murray and Heber sightseeing.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">4 October </b> Now joined by James Ballantyne, the party go on another sightseeing tour.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">5 October </b> John Murray and Ballantyne set out early for Edinburgh. John Murray writes to his wife that his plans of the past twelve months concerning a new conservative review and establishing a business arrangement with Ballantyne and Scott have been realized beyond his expectations.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">12 October </b> William Gifford writes to George Canning.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">16 October </b> John Murray arrives back in London.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">16 October </b> "Review of the Exposition of Don Pedro Cevallos" <i>Examiner</i> Number 42 (October 16, 1808) 657-59.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">23 October </b> William Erskine to his brother-in-law Archibald Campbell-Colquhoun, Lord Advocate of Scotland, answers the Lord Advocate's letter and returns Canning's, says "plan alluded to is already in some measure begun. Murray ... went to Ashestiel" to suggest a Review to oppose the <i>Edinburgh</i>, and to ask Scott to be editor. Scott declined. Thinks if government is to give support, editor should be in London. William Gifford has been offered editorship. Thinks Canning has his eye on Gifford. Malthus has agreed to assist. Scott will assist; has been hurt by Jeffrey's <i>Marmion</i>.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">25 October </b> Walter Scott to William Gifford, says he has received letter from Lord Advocate who has been in correspondence with Canning, who informs him that Gifford is to be editor. Recounts Murray's visit to Ashestiel. States that Murray had had some earlier communication with Canning on the subject of a Review, "although indirectly" (through Stratford Canning?). <i>Edinburgh Review</i> on Spain "have done the work great injury with the public"</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">26 October </b> John Murray writes to Walter Scott, has reason to believe government will be supportive as he has seen William Gifford who spoke circumspectly about having spoken with high politicos about the need for a review; William Gifford has employed John Murray as publisher for Dr. John Ireland, William Gifford's best friend</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">27 October </b> Scott, in letter to Archibald Campbell-Colquhoun, says he has read Canning's letter and has replied; asks Campbell-Colquhoun to forward that letter and a long letter to William Gifford (copy to Canning); thinks William Gifford will eventually agree to provide articles for the review; he does not know William Gifford's address; the letter was approved by William Erskine.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">31 October </b> Scott to Joanna Baillie, denies harboring hard feelings toward Jeffrey, but wishes the <i>Marmion</i> review had been couched in more civil language.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">6 November </b> Robert Southey writes to Walter Scott, is glad Scott has broken his association with the <i>Edinburgh Review</i>.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">9 November </b> William Gifford replies to Walter Scott's letter; says he has spoken with Canning and Lord Hawkesbury about the review; Canning has promised to speak with George Ellis, William Gifford with Rose; thinks Jackson of Christ Church and other good men from Oxford and Cambridge might be solicited; William Gifford warns Scott about his poor health.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">9 November </b> Southey to Herbert Hill, says he has communicated with Scott who has broken with the <i>Edinburgh</i> for political reasons. Southey thinks his refusal to write for the <i>Edinburgh</i> first pricked Scott's conscience, and perhaps Scott also stung by <i>Marmion</i> review. Gifford has asked Southey to write for the new journal. Wants to write on the missionaries, to answer Sydney Smith's anti-missionary articles in the <i>Edinburgh</i>. In a letter to Grosvenor Bedford dated 11 November, Southey repeats his belief that he had pricked Scott's conscience.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">11 November </b> George Ellis writes to Walter Scott a detailed prospectus of what the review should and should not be, that it should use popularity to become a vehicle of instruction.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">15 November </b> John Murray writes long letter to Walter Scott outlining his plan for the review; reminds Scott that for almost two years he had had the idea of a review opposing the principles of the <i>Edinburgh Review</i>, and that he had written Canning about it one year since. Tries to clarify who will author the lead article of the first number; Gifford has asked Southey, against John Murray's objections. Insists the journal must be independent of government. Asks Scott's approval of a title for the journal, <i>London</i> <i>Quarterly Review</i>. Declares the editor's salary to be 200 pounds per annum and sets total payments to contributors per number at 60 guineas.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">17 November </b> John Murray writes a second long letter to Scott; says he has met William Gifford again; William Gifford has communicated with Canning, Lord Hawksebury, Mr. Long, and Huskisson; Southey has declined writing the lead article on the war in Spain; John Murray will write to Ballantyne.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">19 November </b> John Murray to Walter Scott, has learned through William Gifford that the Saints (parliamentary evangelicals under William Wilberforce), who had been contemplating a review to counter the <i>Edinburgh</i>, will now support their project. 19 November Scott to Thomas Scott, says "a plot has been hatching by the gentlemen who were active in the Anti-Jacobin paper..."</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">22 November </b> George Ellis's second letter to Walter Scott on the review in receipt of Scott's reply to his first; with Scott fears that Gifford's health will lead to problems; does not know Southey, doubts his political opinions are sound.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">24 to 27 November </b> William Gifford and Canning in conference with George Ellis at Claremont, Canning's residence; for four days they discuss the review.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">29 November </b> William Gifford meets with George Canning; arranges an interview for John Murray with Canning. George Ellis will write for the new journal. George Ellis writes a third letter to Walter Scott; discusses November 24-27 Claremont conference; appears Canning is too busy to write for the review; Ellis agrees to undertake the lead article on the war in Spain; calls for the politics of the review to be temperate and independent of government.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">1 December </b> John Murray writes to Walter Scott about the November 24-27 Claremont conference; Samuel Rogers, Edward Copleston, and Reginald Heber (Richard's brother) might be recruited; he and William Gifford agree with Scott the review should avoid offending the Saints.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">2 December </b> "Apostasy of the <i>Edinburgh Review</i>," letter to editor of <i>Courier</i> newspaper, by x.y.: "Thomas Paine never published any thing more seditious than the last number of the <i>Edinburgh Review</i>."</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">6 December </b> John Murray writes to Walter Scott that Thomas Moore and Sotheby have agreed to contribute reviews.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">18 December </b> George Ellis writes to Walter Scott; everything is coming together; three scientific men have been recruited.</p>
<p><b><font color="#000066">ca. 29 December </b> James Pillans will write for the new journal. James Mill offers to review William Lowe on the West Indies. Mrs. Inchbald is asked to contribute, but she is very diffident. William Gifford meets with Canning and Ellis at Claremont, Canning's residence.</p>
</blockquote>
<!-- #EndEditable --></div></div></div><section class="field field-name-field-parent-section field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Parent Section:&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/node/31537">Scholarly Resources</a></div></div></section><section class="field field-name-field-resource-index field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Parent Resource:&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/reference/qr/index.html">The Quarterly Review Archive</a></div></div></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-person-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Person:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/sydney-smith" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Sydney Smith</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/william-gifford" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">William Gifford</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/francis-jeffrey" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Francis Jeffrey</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/james-grahame" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">James Grahame</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/walter-scott" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Walter Scott</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/richard-heber" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Richard Heber</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/george-canning" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">George Canning</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/john-murray" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">John Murray</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/don-pedro-cevallos" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Don Pedro Cevallos</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/james-ballantyne" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">James Ballantyne</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-city-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">City:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/city/london" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">London</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/city/edinburgh" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Edinburgh</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-country-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Country:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/country/spain" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spain</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/country/india" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">India</a></li></ul></section>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:14:11 +0000rc-admin23323 at http://www.rc.umd.edu